DISCLAIMER

DISCLAIMER:I do not attempt to be polite or partisan in my articles, merely truthful. If you are a partisan and believe that the letter after the name of a politician is more important then their policies, I suggest that you stop reading and leave this site immediately--there is nothing here for you.

Modern American politics are corrupt, hyper-partisan, and gridlocked, yet the mainstream media has failed to cover this as anything but politics as usual. This blog allows me to post my views, analysis and criticisms which are too confrontational for posting in mainstream outlets.

I am your host, Josh Sager--a progressive activist, political writer and occupier--and I welcome you to SarcasticLiberal.blogspot.com

Friday, December 30, 2011

One common meme among the right wing in the United
States is the classifying of things that they don’t agree with as
unconstitutional. The accusation of unconstitutionality as a partisan attack is
leveled by a wide variety of political actors, ranging from candidates for
president to political pundits. This tactic is used to sway low information
voters to argue against their own interests through appealing to their loyalty to
an imagined interpretation of the constitution.

Republican presidential candidates have recently declared
a wide range of government functions to be unconstitutional during the 2012
primary debates and in press releases. Virtually every candidate on the primary
stage, as well as numerous right wing political strategists, have claimed that
the Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”) is unconstitutional; a claim that is blatantly
false given not only that the interstate commerce clause allows the federal
government to regulate a wide variety of services but that the idea of the
mandate was supported by most of the people who are now fighting it. The entire
idea of the mandate was created by the Heritage Foundation (an extremely right
wing think-tank), promoted by Gingrich, and implemented by Romney. Unless many on the right wing are willing to argue
that their own ideas are unconstitutional when adopted by the Democrats, they
clearly don’t believe their own claims of unconstitutionality to be true.

The allegations of unconstitutionality are not limited
to the health care fight, as many Republican political actors have made similar
claims against policies that they don’t like. Rick Perry, Ron Paul, and
numerous other right wing leaders have both claimed that the entire social
safety net (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) is in fact
unconstitutional due to the fact that it is never mentioned in the
constitution. Other right wing leaders
have decried various policies such as welfare, federal monetary policy, banning
prayer in schools, and protecting women’s rights as unconstitutional
overreaches of federal power.

Unfortunately, this epidemic of claiming progressive
policy as “unconstitutional” is not only rampant but acting as a mask for the
policies that are truly unconstitutional. Using the constitution as a partisan
tactic is both abhorrent to the political discourse and simply dishonest on its
face. Rather than fighting a policy position on its merits, those who use this
tactic simply smear the policy with lies and need not present any facts.
Because the claims are not rooted in reality, there is no way to fight them
with the facts and thus the left wing is unable to effectively counter this
tactic; this tactic is similar to claiming that the moon is made of green cheese
and thus any samples taken from the moon are obviously fake because they are
not made of

cheese.

It is important to exclude true originalists (basically,
Ron Paul) from the tactical component of this argument as they are not using
the allegation of unconstitutionality as a tactic but rather as a genuinely
held belief. The concept that anything not expressly mentioned in the constitution
is called originalism and, while it is widely discredited as a realistic political
belief, that doesn't mean that those who hold this belief are immoral.

Regardless of whether the allegations of
unconstitutionality are genuine or merely an immoral tactic, they desensitize
the public to the claims when there are truly unconstitutional things happening
in politics. In recent years, we have seen numerous demonstrably unconstitutional
legislations suggested and even passed in some occasions. The recent,
bipartisan, reauthorizations of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act)
and the Patriot act are two examples of legislations that have blatantly
unconstitutional aspects that have passed without significant challenge. The
Patriot Act infringes upon our fourth Amendment rights while the NDAA (in its
amended form) infringes upon our 4th, 5th, 6th,
and 8th amendment rights. While the NDAA and the Patriot act are
probably the most relevant examples of recent unconstitutional legislation,
such legislative overreach is not limited to defense policy. The widespread
attacks on a women’s right to an abortion and everybody’s right to vote are
simply two examples of non-defense policy that are in fact, unconstitutional. How
is it that virtually an entire party of the US government can unite behind the
false accusation of unconstitutionality while supporting or ignoring genuinely
unconstitutional policies?

The problem in this situation is the use of constitutionality as
a tactic rather than a fact. When constitutionality has become devalued to the
point where it is dependent upon the partisanship of the sponsor of a bill, it
is no longer considered a true ideal; if the constitutionality of a bill is
seen as partisan affiliation dependent, everything the other side suggests is automatically
wrong, no matter how reasonable, while everything that your side suggests is
automatically right, no matter how egregious. The constitution is the framework
of the laws and politics of our country, not a specific set of rules that apply
to one party more than the other. I can, and often do, disagree with somebody
and believe that their positions are either ignorant or immoral (See: Tea
Party), but I can’t use the constitution to attack their policy where it is not
unconstitutional. The constitution should not be used as a partisan weapon nor
should we devalue its constraints to the point where truly unconstitutional
legislation passes unquestioned.

Monday, December 26, 2011

As the 2012 presidential primary deadline comes
closer, it is becoming increasingly evident that the Republican primary is not
actually a political race; it is actually a brilliantly designed and executed
reality show. Each of the political candidates on the stage represents a
different segment of the Republican party and, as with many reality TV shows,
the entire purpose of the primary is to “vote them off the island” in order to
determine which contestant remains to get the big prize.

When I refer to the Republican primary process as
being a game show, I don’t extend this to past election cycles. I have no right
to completely deride an entire party’s ideology, as in the USA everybody is
entitled to their opinions. I may not agree with the conservative narrative,
but that simply means that I will argue the issues with anybody who holds
conservative views. The current Republican Party has gone insane and divorced
itself not only from the facts, but from all political convention; unlimited
money and partisan distillation has allowed a very well-funded core of completely
unqualified and extremist candidates to take over the right wing narrative. The
Republican Party is no longer a legitimate political party, but a caricature of
the extreme right wing brought to life; they are crazy, ill informed, hyper-religious,
bigoted, and proud of it.

No outsider can argue with a party that has
disregarded all facts, as all members of the party are creating a new narrative
that they consider facts. When I see the current Republicans, I am reminded of the
scene in “Alice in Wonderland” where Alice meets the Mad Hatter and tries to
apply logic to an illogical mind. It is this degradation of the sanity of the
party as a whole that has brought about the situation where an entire primary
race can be looked at as a reality TV show.

The
Game (The Primary and the Debates)

The “Republican Primary Show” is a reality game show
where numerous conservative politicians get together and attempt to win the
grand prize of the party nomination to the office of President; the runner ups receive
prizes such as Fox TV shows, book deals, and speaking engagements. This game
show is virtually no holds barred and the audience expects blood: they boo gay
soldiers while cheering executions, torture, and war.

The game show aspect of the primary plays out during
over a dozen televised debates, where contestants compete for the hearts and
minds of the audience. Contestants must walk a fine line during the “episodes”
so as to simultaneously reject reality enough that they are seen as true
conservatives, while not appearing completely insane. For example: Rejecting
evolution, climate change, and Obama’s policies are mandatory, yet claiming
that vaccinations cause mental retardation is simply a step too far. If the
candidates are too sane, they have no chance to win the game as the right wing
audience will hate them (Huntsman Syndrome), but they must at least appear rational
and balance in their rejection of reality so as to avoid being seen as unable
to hold the office (Bachmann Syndrome).

Meet
the Contestants (The Candidates):

Mitt Romney: Representing the plutocratic segment of
the Republican Party, Romney is the contestant that everybody knows is the
favorite but nobody wants to win. The dislike of Romney goes far beyond the
customary rooting against the establishment and into a category where the race
has two real candidates; Romney and the “Not-Romney”. In reality show terms:
Romney is the skilled and intelligent contestant who everybody on the show
wants to take down to make a name for themselves and everybody in the audience
wants to see taken down.

Rick Perry: Representing the Deep South
ultra-conservative segment of the Republican Party, Perry is the contestant who
shows initial promise to take down the favorite but then falls to self-inflicted
wounds before he can even face his rival. In reality show terms: Perry is the
contestant who comes on strong and appears to dominate the first half of the game,
but then stumbles on his own inadequacies in front of the audience, thus killing
his momentum before the game even ends.

Michelle Bachmann: Representing the anti-everything,
Tea Party segment of the Republican Party, Bachmann is the wild card candidate
who comes onto the scene as a whirlwind and leaves just as quickly. In reality
show terms: Bachmann is the flash in the pan contestant who everybody knows is
insane, but is kept in the game because she is so amusing to watch. Nobody thinks
that she is going to win, but other contestants like her because she makes them
look balanced and the audience sees her as a constant source of amusement, thus
she is allowed to remain on the stage.

Newt Gingrich: Representing the entrenched, 20th
century establishment segment of the Republican Party, Gingrich is the undead
contestant; he is ugly, mean and smells to high heaven, but every time it looks
like he has fallen out of the contest, he pops back up stronger than ever (and slightly
more aromatic). In reality show terms: Gingrich is the antagonist who nobody on
the stage likes and the audience will only support if he will take down a
contestant that they hate even more.

Ron Paul: Representing the Ayn Randian libertarian
segment of the Republican Party, Paul is the crazy outsider who looks
progressively saner as his competition degrades with time. The current
Republican Party has moved so far out to the right (and away from reality) that
Ron Paul is one of the more moderate, balanced and consistent candidates. In
reality show terms: Paul is the cross season candidate who everybody knows and
many like, yet will never win; he just keeps coming back for more every season,
while the show degrades around him (Example: Survivor).

Herman Cain: Representing no particular demographic
of the Republican Party, Cain is the comic relief candidate who many find
amusing until his antics stray into the distasteful and he is shunted off of
the stage. Modeling your economic policy off of Sim City and quoting Pokémon
music are comic relief but allegations of sexual assault are not, thus Cain the
jester becomes simply an embarrassment (A heroic accomplishment considering this
field) to be voted out of the competition.

John Huntsman: Representing the sane segment of the
Republican Party, Huntsman is the lone voice of sanity in the right wing
wilderness. I won’t use reality show memes to describe Huntsman as he actually
deserves better; he is an old school Republican who, while conservative, still
lives in reality and subscribes to science. In any other situation, Huntsman
should be the frontrunner in the pack of fools, lunatics and flip-floppers that
he is sharing the stage with. Unfortunately for Huntsman, being the sole sane
person in an asylum filled with the insane is a lonely position and not one
that has any chance of growing into a nomination.

Where we go from here

I would just like to conclude with two comments: One
for Democrats, the other for Republicans.

1.To
Democrats: You must fight back against the insanity of the right wing if you
want the USA to resemble anything that has been in the past or is now. If you
stop pushing against the right wing agenda and the weakness of your own
politicians, we will live in a fascist theocracy within a generation. Money and
religion have bought the other side and will use their influence to shape the
country if there is no pushback. The 2010 election demonstrated what happens if
you don’t go out to vote and remain active in the political process; a bunch of
crazy, corrupt lunatics take over the government and bring us to hostage
situation after hostage situation in order to get a partisan agenda passed.

2.To
Republicans: Look at what your party has become. Your politicians are neither
conservative, nor are they principled in any way. The Republican Party only
serves the rich and will bring about the downfall of the USA if allowed to take
over. Republican politicians spend huge amounts of money giving tax cuts to the
rich (but never to the poor, as demonstrated by the payroll tax fight) and cut
safety regulations. If you support the middle class, safe workplaces, public
education, a secular society, civil rights or a clean environment you simply
should not be a Republican; if you support any of those ideals, either make a
new party or push for reform inside of the Republican political establishment
quickly.

With the eviction from the Dewey Square site, the
occupiers of Boston must consider how to continue the movement through the
winter and beyond. This document is not official in any way, neither is it an
attempt to coopt the decision-making process of the movement; it is merely an
analysis of our possible actions in regard to cost and effect. All of the below
protest tactics are possible but they do have pros and cons; as there is little
empirical data on the effects of protest tactic utilized by the occupations,
all pros and cons are qualitative rather than quantitative.

There is no way to analyze every possible protest
tactic, as there are virtually unlimited methods of protest available to the
occupations; however, anybody who wants to add a tactic or discuss the below
tactic can contact me at jsager99@gmail.com.
(I will only talk about non-violent tactics and civil disobedience.)

Table
of Contents

1.Physical
Occupations/Sit-ins

a.“Occupy
Our Homes”

b.Re-occupying
after a raid

c.Occupying
political offices

d.Occupying
banking offices

e.Blockading
political/economic institutions

2.Marches

a.City-wide
protest marches

b.Targeted
marches to a significant location

c.Specialized
marches

3.Economic
Protests

a.Boycotts

b.Economic
blockades

c.Re-direction
of economic activity

4.Non-Traditional
Protests

a.Flash
mobs

b.Light
projections onto buildings

c.Micro-occupation

d.Symbolic
funerals

e.Symbolic
weddings

f.Rewritten
manger scenes

g.Mic-checking
political/economic leaders

h.Living
theater protests

5.Messaging

a.Solidarity
symbols

b.Poster
campaigns

c.Outreach
to artists

d.Buying
media ad time

e.Proposing
model bills to politicians

f.Passing
model legislation through the general assembly

g.Letter
writing campaigns

6.Education

a.Running
educational seminars

b.Distributing
informational pamphlets

7.Political
Actions

a.Voter
registration

b.Running
an “occupy” candidate

c.Endorsing
candidates

d.Operating
as a PAC for issue promotion

e.Petitions

f.Pledges

8.Miscellaneous

a.Hunger
Strikes

b.Banner
Drops

Physical
Occupations/Sit-ins

Re-occupying
after a raid (Framed for Occupy Boston)

Description:
It is possible to pick a new location in the city for the occupation to build a
new “occupy” camp after the raid; this action has been done at other occupation
such as Occupy San Francisco.

Positive:
The new location could assist the homeless who were evicted from Dewey when it
was raided. The physical presence of the occupation acts as a symbol for those
who follow the movement as it is one of the signature tactics of the 99% Movement.

Negative:
As
the judiciary has ruled that there is no right to occupy, the police would
rapidly crack down on this site and it would be shut down very quickly. This
option wastes resources and would not accommodate the transition to the second
stage of the 99% movement. As was demonstrated with the Dewey Square
occupation, there are numerous problems with occupations that would likely
detract from the message of the group; this tactic has also diminished in its
effectiveness and likely would not survive the winter.

“Occupy
Our Homes”

Description:
Several occupations across the country have adopted a strategy of occupying
foreclosed building in protest of the actions of the bankers and the waste of
allowing buildings to remain empty where there are homeless. In several cases,
citizens facing foreclosure have been given support in the form of a small
occupation on their lands; in most of these cases, the banks have neglected to
force eviction while the occupation is on site.

Positive:
Helping average citizens retain their homes is an effective and positive
protest method; with the level of public discontent over the current housing
crisis at a peak, the occupiers can show themselves as helpers of the middle
class. As the protestors are not squatting on public land, there is little
chance that their detractors will accuse them of blocking public use of that
land. As the mortgage problems are so widespread, the tactic of helping people
who are evicted would likely garner large levels of support from the public; it
is non-aggressive and it is seen as a public service rather than a nuisance.

Negative:
If
this practice were to become widespread, the banks would likely fight
aggressively against these occupations; arrests would eventually begin to
increase due to top down pressure on authorities. This tactic
disproportionately helps those in middle class areas because their properties
would be more able to accommodate a significant occupation, while those living
in lower class areas would simply not have the physical space (house versus
apartment).

Occupying
Political Offices

Description:
Staging
small scale, temporary, occupations at political offices, campaign offices, and
lobbying offices is a tactic that can be used to demonstrate discontent with
the actions of the occupied group. Politicians whose headquarters were occupied
would have a constant reminder of the existence of the occupiers and what they
stand for. Political campaign headquarters and lobbying offices which were
occupied would have their operations impeded and potentially stopped in the
short term.

Positive:
This tactic can be used to target specific candidates or groups and obstruct
their actions without impeding the public. In addition to targeting the
operation of specific groups, it is virtually impossible for the politicians to
ignore the occupiers when the occupiers are waiting in the next room. If the
area occupied is considered public space, such as a political office, the
owners have little standing to evict the occupiers until the end of business
hours; these areas are indoors and would be able to accommodate long term,
daytime protests. As the areas occupied are small, there are low requirements
for the number of occupiers to cause an obstruction.

Negative:
If
the area occupied is private property, such as a campaign or lobbying office,
those occupying them would be arrested and charged with criminal trespassing
and potentially disturbing the peace. In many cases, the occupation of an area
will not obstruct the operations going on there enough to have an impact. The
areas occupied in these actions are often small or otherwise less visible than
a public thoroughfare, thus the visibility of these actions is entirely
dependent upon the media.

Occupying
Banking Offices

Description:
Staging
small scale occupations of banking institutions and banking offices could be
used to obstruct the operations of banks. As one significant focus of the
occupy movement is protesting the actions of the bankers, any disruption of
major banking operations would fall in line with “occupy” values and goals.

Positive:
If
significant disruption of the bankers was achieved, it would send a message to
the banks that people are not only angry with them, but are willing and able to
demonstrate their discontent.

Negative:
The
actions of the occupiers would likely only interfere with the lower level
operations of the banks as the higher level banking operations are usually
located in secured buildings; likely such disruptions would only inconvenience
the customers and lower level bankers, neither of whom are the targets of the
occupier’ protest. The occupiers of banking buildings would be subject to
arrest for trespassing and potentially disturbing the peace.

Blockading
Political/Economic institutions

Description:
Instituting
physical blockades of buildings containing protested businesses is a very
effective way to disrupt businesses. As seen in environmental, labor and
pro-life protests, simply refusing to allow entry into a contested business is
a direct and immediate way to shut down operations of a business.

Positive:
Simply
blockading an institution is both overt and extremely disruptive. Even a short
term blockade of lobbying offices, banks, or the capitol would make huge news
headlines.

Negative:
This
tactic is very risky towards the protesters, both in terms of public opinion
backlash and legal consequences. The blockaders would be subject to arrest
immediately and this tactic might be seen as overly aggressive by some in the
public (and occupations). With the rise of internet communications, many
operations (political and banking institutions included) require much less of a
physical presence; it would be unlikely that the targeted operations would be
shut down completely.

Marches

City-Wide
protest marches

Description:
The
political protest march is one of the staple tactics utilized by
political/social protests for decades. Marches through the city streets,
coupled with signs and slogans, is used to make people pay attention to an
issue that the marchers care about; these are used to mobilize support and act
as a physical show of support for an idea.

Positive:
Marches are very noticeable and can be used to raise awareness of a
political/social movement. In most cases, marches are legal and protected
speech, thus the likelihood of arrest at a peaceful march is less likely than
many other tactics (occupations, sit-ins, etc.). Marches have been proven to be
effective over years of protests in the USA and the world.

Negative:
Marches
obstruct traffic and can often irritate people who could otherwise be swayed to
support the cause. Marches are common and thus garner less interest than other,
more innovative and new tactics. Unless there is are significant numbers of
protesters, a march is easily overlooked and thus ineffective in conveying its
message.

Targeted
marches to a significant location

Description:
Targeted
marches are identical to city-wide marches, but have specific routes and
locations visited so as to target the effect of the march upon the focus of the
protest. Banks, political offices, selected businesses, or other focus points
of 99% protest are march locations in order to show these groups the level of
opposition to their actions in a tangible form; often this is used to obstruct
traffic to a target or to compel it to change its actions in the face of
massive discontent.

Positive:
Targeted marches focus the effects of a march on a specific target, increasing
the impact on several specific locations, while decreasing collateral
obstruction of the public.

Negative:
Targeted
marches operate at specific locations rather than large swathes of the city,
thus the visibility is focused on a much smaller area (More focus, less
spread).

Specialized
marches

Description:
Specialized
marches are marches that have a unique theme or defining characteristic; candle
lit marches, costume marches, and dance marches are three examples of ways that
marches can be altered to garner more visibility.

Positive:
Marches with unique themes are much more notable to the public than a generic
march. Anything that is unique tends to draw attention in the public eye more
so than something that people have seen before.

Negative:
See
either City-Wide marches or Targeted Marches.

Examples:
Giving everybody in the march a common and symbolic costume or theme (bankers,
zombies, etc…); using candlelight to light the march; utilizing a band or
musical theme to draw attention to the march (brass band parade); having
everybody in the march dance down the street; etc…

Economic
Protests

Bank
Transfer days

Description:
Large, coordinated, removals of money from the top 5 banks into smaller credit
unions is a potential protest tactic; this was done earlier in 2011 and was one
factor that led to the retreat of the banks in the $5/month checking account
charge.

Positive:
Transferring money from the big 5 banks and into credit unions both makes a
point to the bankers and could have potential to disrupt bank activities. When
a significant number of people leave the big banks, they will have a decreased,
although still significant, control over the wealth of the USA. Transfers to
smaller banks help them, while harming the large banks that caused the recent
economic crisis, making it an effective and highly targeted protest tactic.

Negative:
Due
to the very nature of this protest, there is a very high level of attrition.
Since people cannot remove their money from banks multiple times, more people
must constantly be drawn in for this type of protest to have any repeatability.
Due to the concentration of wealth at the top, the banks will still function
while the rich citizens and corporations keep their money in the system.

Boycotts

Description:
Boycotts
of goods and services is a method of protest that harms a group where it hurts;
it’s pocketbook. By refusing to patronize a certain business, a group can
register discontent with the business’s practices or goods.

Positive:
Boycotts
are virtually without cost, as they are by their very definition the foregoing
of buying certain goods. The only costs incurred in a boycott are the costs of
buying alternative goods (generic V. name brand) and services and the costs of
transportation (where there are travel differences).

Negative:
Unless
a significant number of people or businesses sign onto and follow the boycott,
it is completely ineffective.

Economic
Blockades – Wise Father

Description:
Occupiers
can stall a business from the inside through clogging up internal operations.
Protesters select an inexpensive good which to buy and then stall the checkout
line for as long as possible; they can also return said good and stall customer
service. Help lines can be mass called in order to clog up the service board,
thus disrupting operations. This tactic is essentially a physical version of a
Denial of Service attack.

Positive:
This
tactic is not illegal and can disrupt the internal working of a business
without the protesters risking arrest.

Negative:
The
vast majority of people inconvenienced by this tactic will be low level workers
and patrons of the business; usually middle class workers. The business must be
carefully selected to minimize the collateral disruption to those who are not
the target of the protests (Ex. Tiffany’s).

Redirection
of Economic Activity

Description:
Rather
than instituting large scale boycotts, protesters can redirect economic
activity from big businesses to smaller ones in the area. An example of this
tactic would be to stand outside of Bank of America and attempt to redirect
people to a local credit union; giving them reasons to switch, directions and
contact information.

Positive:
By
giving an alternative to the boycotted good or service, the occupiers can both
financially harm a targeted business, but at the same time support a local
small business. Unlike a boycott or financial blockade, this tactic is not
disruptive to the average citizen, nor does it cause disruption to the low
level workers inside of the store.

Negative:
Depending
upon the situation, this tactic could be illegal and expose protesters to
trespassing charges.

Non-Traditional
Protests

Flash
mobs

Description:
There
are numerous types of flash mob, but they are almost a gathering of people at a
predetermined location/time who act in concert for a short amount of time and
then disperse. Flash mobs are extremely flexible and can act in a way similar
to a march but condensed into a small area and time period; people quickly
gather, act out a routine, and disperse.

Positive:
A well planned and timed flash mob can be very eye catching and thus an
effective method of conveying a point. There is an extremely high level of
flexibility in a flash mob’s utility due to the varied types of actions and
protests that can operate through such mobs. There is a small chance of being
arrested at a flash mob because police rarely mobilize in time to deal with the
crowd.

Negative:
By
their very nature, flash mobs are short term and localized, thus they cover a
small number of people when compared to more lengthy and spread out protests.
Flash mobs require perfect timing and planning to be effective.

Light
projections onto buildings

Description:
As
pioneered by the Occupy Wall Street protestors, the use of a high powered
projector, a computer, and a mobile power source can be adapted to create large
projections onto buildings.

Positive:
Light
projections are not illegal nor do they leave any damage that would need to be
cleaned up by low level workers (unlike standard graffiti).

Negative:
The
equipment required to create a strong projection is relatively expensive and
difficult requires some expertise to set up. Projections are only feasible at
night and on certain buildings (due to space, reflections, and light absorbing
materials).

Micro-occupation
(untested)

Description:
A
micro-occupation would involve a small scale, symbolic occupation. By creating
hundreds of brightly colored, small scale (1 Foot * 1 foot) tents stamped with
the 99% symbol, we could hand out a new type of political sign. People who
support us would hang these tents outside of their houses or apartments in a
show of support for the movement. Using these tents in leu of actual tents
allows for the idea of an “occupation” to persist while removing the camping
during the winter time and the risk of arrest.

Positive:
This protest tactic is cheap, and simply requires money for materials and that occupiers/supporters
have locations to hang the mini-tents. As these tents are essentially lawn
ornaments, there is virtually no risk for arrest or police harassment.

Negative:
This
protest tactic is untested and could lack the visibility of other protest
methods.

“Replying”
to credit card offers with notes – Kate

Description:
In
all credit card offers and other bank solicitations there is a pre-paid envelope;
postage on this envelope is only charged to the banks when it is sent back to
the banks from the sender. In leu of simply discarding the offers, a protester
can reply to the bank offers by putting notes or other junk mail into the reply
envelope to be returned to the banks. The banks will essentially be paying for
the protester’s postage and will be obligated to open the letter because it
could be a legitimate reply.

Positives:
This
tactic is legal and without any cost to the protester. As every envelope must
be opened by the banks, it is potentially expensive and time consuming to them
if a significant number of protesters use this tactic.

Negatives:
This
tactic is only available to those who have consistent mailing addresses

Symbolic
funerals (untested)

Description:
Holding
imaginary and symbolic funerals for concepts such as “The American Dream”, the
1st Amendment, or fair elections, is a potential protest tactic.
These funerals would be conducted on public land in a manner virtually
identical to a standard march.

Positive:
The staging of a funeral for a well-known and liked idea is a powerful image.
This tactic can be used to convey concern over an issue while at the same time
informing people to the values of the movement as a whole. Mock funerals are a
new tactic and thus would draw attention from the public more effectively than
a common march.

Negative:
This
protest is untested, but it is essentially a themed march. See specialized march
negatives above.

Symbolic
weddings – Joshua Eaton

Description:
Conducting
symbolic weddings between institutions in protest of corruption, collusion and
corporate personhood. Examples of two institutions that this tactic could apply
to are the Federal Reserve and the big five private banks.

Positive:
Same
as symbolic funerals

Negative:
Same
as symbolic funerals

Rewritten
Manger Scenes – Joshua Eaton

Description:
Staging
manger scenes with an occupy theme; using tents as the structure and altering
the scene to support the narrative of the occupations. Carols and Christian themes
can be adapted to support ideas such as unionizing carpenters, helping the poor,
and raising awareness of those without homes.

Positive:
This
tactic is new and would draw attention to the protests just out of novelty. If
conducted with proper permitting, these protests would be legal and conductible
on public grounds.

Negative:
Many
religions Christians could misinterpret the use of the Manger scene in the
context of the occupations as a slight towards Christianity.

Mic-Checking
political or economic leaders

Description:
The
mic-check is a signature tactic of the occupations. The occupiers use this
method of sound amplification instead of electronic means during meetings; over
time, it has adapted to use in protests, particularly during political
meetings/speeches. When used in a protest, the mic-check is essentially a type
of flash mob.

Positive:
There is no material requirement for this protest tactic, nor does it require a
large crowd to execute. Mic-checking is very specific and causes a high level
of disruption in the speech/meeting but only a minimal level of collateral
disruption.

Negative:
As
with all protests on private property, there is a chance of arrest that the
protesters must assess. While disruptive, this tactic is only viable in short
bursts at a political rally due to security shutting down the “mics”. For other
negatives, see the flash mob entry.

Living
Theater Protests

Description:
By
acting out a scene or skit in public place, occupiers can push an agenda and
promote information among the viewers: imagine a scene where four people: 2
police, 1 robber, 1 banker; get together to discuss the theft of public money.
The police arrest the robber and let the banker go, all while a narrator
describes why the banker gets away free even though they stole more. The
possible situations are virtually endless, and draw attention of the public
onto vital issues.

Positives:
These
skits could be informative and amusing, making them easily digestible
informational seminars. Having spontaneous and random scenes acted out and
filmed in the streets would be unique and would probably draw significant
attention; it would also be amusing and would allow occupiers to protest in an
entertaining and non-threatening manner. The risk of arrest in these actions is
minimal, just as long as the actors don’t obstruct traffic or trespass during
the protest.

Negatives:
None

Messaging

Solidarity
Symbols

Description:
By
creating an easily recognizable and mass produced sign of solidarity (Ex. A
tent with 99% on the side) which can then be adapted into signs, stickers and
other goods, the occupiers can allow people to easily and cheaply show support
to the occupiers.

Positives:
This
tactic is cheap and easily done. By allowing people to show support simply
through bumper stickers or house signs, the occupiers can get some of the less
motivated supporters to show their support; as shown in political campaigns,
simple signs posted on lawns can allow supporters to passively support their
candidates. If enough people show their support, people will be more likely to
take the occupations seriously, simply due to the inertia of positive support
(Argument ad populum).

Negatives:
This
tactic is not likely to sway significant numbers of people to the cause quickly
nor would it impact those who actively oppose the occupations.

Poster
Campaigns

Description:
Utilizing
posters and wheat based glue, the occupiers could spread information quickly and
cheaply across the city. Posting numerous posters on well-traveled routes (Ex.
Boston Common area, major transportation hubs, etc) would allow the occupiers
to spread information about the movement and the ideals behind it.

Positive:
There is a much lower cost to a poster campaign than an official ad campaign;
the only requirements are an industrial printer, a paste, and volunteers.
Posters can be posted everywhere and can be replaced quickly if removed. A
large variety of posters can be printed and thus a rotating/varied set of
posters can be used to inform people over a wide range of issues.

Negative:
In
many cases, placing posters on private property is considered trespassing and
can cause the distributor to be arrested. Oftentimes, the poor or lower middle
class workers of an area are the ones who are left to clean up the results of
any poster campaign.

Outreach
to artists

Description:
There
are numerous artists, whether visual or audio, who support the occupations,
thus hosting art shows and music festivals is a potential method of drawing in
support. By drawing people to the occupations through art, music, and food, the
occupiers can increase awareness of issues and entice people to support the
ideals of the movement, even if the viewer would otherwise be unlikely to seek
out the protests without the draw of amusement.

Positives:
Music,
art and food are all draw that can entice people to attend events that they
know little about. If the occupiers make a good case for their cause while the
festival is going on, those who attend would likely be swayed to support the
cause of the occupations.

Negatives:
The
space, materials, and equipment required for these festivals would likely be
expensive for the occupations. In some locations, the occupiers would have a
hard time getting a permit for the event.

Buying
media ad time

Description:
The
occupations could use mass media, whether print, radio, or television, in order
to promote their cause. Ads are a staple of most political movements and have
been shown to be effective in swaying public opinion at the margins of support.

Positive:
Ads raise awareness of the occupations and the issues that the occupiers
support. Ads are a well-established form of information spreading and have a
proven positive effect when utilized correctly.

Negative:
Ad
space is expensive and it is unlikely that the occupations could compete with
the opposition to the occupations in terms of ad purchasing. As shown in a
leaked letter, lobbying groups are willing to spend far more money than we can
raise in ads, thus attempting to compete with them is directly is ineffective.
A lot of people inside of the movement are opposed to the idea of spending
money for an ad buy, thus the occupations risk a split if they spend
significant money for ad time.

Proposing
model bills to politicians

Description:
It
is possible that the occupiers could write their own legislation to present to
a sympathetic politician for sponsorship in the legislature. Groups such as
ALEC and the Chamber of Commerce have been utilizing this method of pushing
public policy for years; while the occupiers don’t have the level of money that
these groups do, a high enough level of human support can push politicians to
act on suggested legislation (such as in the civil rights struggle).

Positive:
There is no more direct method of affecting public policy than to write the
actual laws which are passed by the legislature. If the bills are kept,
virtually un-amended, the ideals of the occupation could be formed into law
(For the closest example to this, look at the recent decision in CA which
stated that corporations are not people in a non-binding resolution).

Negative:
Many
occupiers have little faith in the current political system. It is unlikely
that any “occupy” proposed bills and amendments could pass the currently
gridlocked legislature.

Passing
model legislation through the general assembly

Description:
The
occupations could use their “General Assembly” process to create and pass
legislation as a statement of values and demands. By creating and “passing”
sample legislation, the occupations could both propose reforms to politicians
and at the same time make their views on issues known. If a concrete statement
of values in the form of a sample law passes out of the occupation, it directly
combats the major criticism of the occupations; that they are unfocused,
ill-informed, and have no central values.

Positive:
This tactic is without cost or risk to the occupiers; it is an effective way of
demonstrating a set of values/goals for the occupiers (likely a populist set of
values that benefits the middle class) and is an exercise in pure democracy. By
“passing” legislature as a occupy community, the occupiers can live the values
of pure democracy that they would prefer the country to adopt.

Negative:
Getting
consensus on a proposed bill would be very difficult; it would also require
people with strong writing skills and knowledge of civics to create a realistic
bill for people to support. With the decentralized nature of the occupations,
any sample legislation would need to be highly specific to the location and not
infringing upon the right of the other occupiers.

Letter
writing campaigns

Description:
Writing
letters to political representatives is a well-established method of pushing a
political agenda.

Positive:
Letter writing campaigns appeal to the older demographics in the 99% movement,
thus such a campaign would allow those uncomfortable with social media to
participate in the movement. The only costs of a letter writing campaign are
those of writing materials, postage, and time.

Negative:
There
is a high level of time investment and writing skills required for this to be
effective. It is entirely possible that big money would eclipse any letter
writing campaign; money has replaced constituent voices in many politicians’
decisions while they are in office.

Education

Running
educational seminars

Description:
Educational
seminars such as the FSU or the Zinn lecture series can be used to raise
awareness for issues that matter to the occupiers. While not a direct protest
method, increasing awareness on vital issues can increase support to the
occupation, just as long as the occupiers have a defined solution to the
discussed problems.

Positive:
Teaching people about the issues vital to our country has a long term effect on
their views. Those who are better informed on the issues are more likely to be
able to act in their own self-interest and thus support the 99% over the 1%.

Negative:
Informing
small (relatively) groups of people on issues has little direct effect on
elections or policy. People self-select themselves when they attend the
seminars, thus those who are unwilling to show initiative are not affected by
this tactic.

Distributing
informational pamphlets

Description:
Written
articles, graphs, and informational diagrams can be mass printed and handed out
during marches and around occupations. These pamphlets would inform readers of
issues facing the USA as well as the goals/ideals of the occupations.

Positives:
Spreading
information on the issues benefits the occupations, as many situations facing
the average citizen are unfair but not well known; consider the bank bailout
and the shadow bailout.There is
little risk of arrest from handing out pamphlets on the street and there is
little risk that the information distributed would harm the occupations.

Negatives:
Writing
and distributing informational pamphlets is a time intensive process that
requires dedication. This tactic is not likely to be effective until a central
series of demands or complaints is decided upon within the occupy movement
because without consensus there would be no central narrative to the
information handed out.

Political
Actions

Voter
Registration

Description:
The
occupations could hold large scale voter registration drives at their events so
as to ensure that everybody who supports the ideals of the occupation votes. As
those who are registered have self-selected themselves to attend the occupy
events, they would likely support the values of the occupation when voting.

Positives:
Voter
registration is sorely needed due to recent restrictions on voting (Voter
registration laws) and apathy of the population; by supplying the registration
to the people, a more democratic model of governance can be promoted. Politicians
are dependent upon votes, thus a large uptick in voter registration is an
effective way of swaying politicians to listen to the people.

Negatives:
Many
people in the occupy movement don’t support the current political system, thus
they would not likely support the widespread enrolment of people into a system
that they believe fundamentally broken. Depending upon the location, voter
registration laws can open the groups doing the registration to civil liability
(See: Florida).

Running
an “occupy” candidate

Description:
Many
third parties and independent candidates have run for office over the years,
thus one potential tactic that the occupations can utilize is to select, fund,
and support a candidate/candidates to run in any number of elections. If the
person who is running as the “occupy” candidate gets elected, it puts a foot in
the door for the occupiers to effect policy from within the system.

Positive:
This tactic could lead to political legitimacy for the occupations in our
current system; look at what the Tea Party did with the Republicans (regardless
of your views on their beliefs), running a large number of candidates in the
2010 election. By using a similar model, the occupations could potentially gain
power inside of the system which could then be used to push an agenda.

Negative:
Many
within the occupations don’t believe that the current system is salvageable and
thus resist becoming involved in it; this belief is strong enough in some that
it could potentially split the movement. With the increase in money in politics
there is a real likelihood that the corporate entities that the occupiers
protest could drown the campaigns in money, thus reducing the chances of this
tactic being possible to implement.

Endorsing
candidates

Description:
By
endorsing a candidate, the occupations could promote certain politicians who
are ideologically in line with the occupiers. This tactic assumes that there is
a defined set of beliefs for the occupiers and that there are politicians who
hold the same views.

Positive:
By simply endorsing friendly candidates, the occupiers gain many of the
advantages of running their own candidate with a decreased monetary and time
based burden. It is easier to support existing candidates within the two-party
system than to create a third party to compete with both of the entrenched
parties.

Negative:
There
is little assurance that any politician would keep their promises to the
occupiers once they entered office. As with running an “occupy” candidate, this
threatens movement cohesion by splitting those who believe in reform from those
who believe in a reset.

Operating
as a PAC for issue promotion

Description:
Rather
than endorsing a specific candidate, there is potential that the occupations
could engage in pure issue advocacy.

Positive:
By pushing an idea, not a person, issue advocacy is far more flexible and
adaptable than supporting a specific candidate. Acting as issue advocates, the
occupiers could affect policy indirectly and without losing internal cohesion;
the occupation would not be directly buying into the political system, rather
supporting an ideology, thus those who don’t wish to perpetuate the current
political system and those who wish for reform could work without conflict.

Negative:
By
removing themselves from involving themselves with politicians, the occupiers
reduce the direct effect on individual electoral races.

Petitions

Description:
Citizen
petitions to show support for ideals can be drafted, distributed and given to
politicians. The occupations could, once they decide upon central issues, draft
petitions in support of the values of the occupations and gather large levels
of support. While the petitions are non-binding, they can be used to compel
politicians to act in conformity with them out of fear of losing their next
election (See: Wisconsin recalls)

Positives:
This
tactic is an effective way to show support for a cause while at the same time
informing people to the beliefs of the occupations. This tactic is low risk and
low cost, but very labor intensive.

Negatives:
This
tactic requires consensus among the occupiers as to beliefs and proposed
solutions to problems in the country. If those who believe the system to be
completely corrupt are correct, petitions are meaningless because money has
taken power over politics.

Pledges

Description:
Pledges
can be drafted, passed through the general assembly and presented to
politicians as a sign of solidarity with the occupations; the clear exchange
would be the support of the occupations in exchange for the politician’s
commitment to act a certain way when in office.

Positives:
Politicians
are always looking for support from groups, thus giving pledges for politicians
to sign would allow the occupiers a foothold in the USA political process.
Groups such as the Tea Party (I hate the comparison, but it is apt) have
massive power over politicians due to pledges, demonstrating the potential for
the occupations to gain similar power.

Negatives:
Many
citizens consider political pledges to be contrary to a democratic process and
thus this tactic would be very controversial within the occupy movement. By
pledging allegiance to a group other than the citizens of the USA, there is a
conflict of interest that can potentially have dire consequences (Case in
point: Grover Norquist). There is no enforcement mechanism preventing the
politician from reneging upon receiving support from the occupations.

Miscellaneous

Hunger
Strikes – Joshua Eaton

Description:
One
potential tactic for the occupiers would be to institute a mass hunger strike;
such a strike would draw attention and demonstrate dedication to the cause.

Positive:
Hunger
strikes, whether political or social have been shown to draw the attention of
the public; as a hunger strike is self-destructive rather than aggressive,
others are unlikely to be irritated or obstructed by the tactic (in comparison
to marches, which obstruct traffic).

Negative:
Hunger
strikes are dangerous and there are those who are simply unable to participate due
to health issues. While a hunger strike sends a message, those in power may
simply not care enough for it to be a valid tactic (The bankers drank champagne
from the balconies of New York and taunted the protesters.)

Banner
drops – Joshua Eaton

Description:
Covering
the sides of buildings with roll-down banners dropped from the roofs is a visible
and large scale tactic that can be used in leu of smaller posters. A single
large poster, dropped down the side of a building could potentially reach
thousands of people directly and more if the media covers it.

Positive:
This
tactic is extremely visible and would likely draw large amounts of attention;
look at the 99% projection on the Verizon building as a model of what the
media/public response could look like. The banner would not cause damage to any
building nor would it require significant cleanup.

Negative:
Unless
the building owners were to give permission to the occupiers (an unlikely
possibility), the banner would be illegal; those setting it up would be
arrested for trespassing and potentially other, more serious, crimes such as
breaking and entering. A banner that could be dropped down the side of a building
is expensive and would be lost quickly to the police or the building owners.

Anonymous's Last Incarnation

All Credit to DregStudios

Copyright Disclaimer

While I don't quote sources directly, I receive a large amount of information from the sources listed below. All links that I post to my blog are credited to the publisher listed on the video or article.